<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (2) TMI 1997 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=471805</link>
    <description>Dishonour of a cheque drawn on a bank that ceased to exist following its merger does not satisfy the statutory conditions for criminal liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. A cheque issued after the drawee bank&#039;s merger is invalid and incapable of being honoured because the named bank no longer exists independently. Its dishonour therefore does not constitute an offence under Section 138.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Sep 2026 08:22:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=924270" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (2) TMI 1997 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=471805</link>
      <description>Dishonour of a cheque drawn on a bank that ceased to exist following its merger does not satisfy the statutory conditions for criminal liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. A cheque issued after the drawee bank&#039;s merger is invalid and incapable of being honoured because the named bank no longer exists independently. Its dishonour therefore does not constitute an offence under Section 138.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=471805</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>